Brought up to believe?

Originally posted by twhitehead
And you missed my point.

In the US there seems to be an over representation of a-Muslims who have had bad experiences at the hands of terrorists.
You are then taking that as evidence that their lack of faith in Islaam is a direct result of their bad experiences.
Where I come from most people are theists and as a result all atheists would have a bad e ...[text shortened]... o accept that there are reasonable logical reasons for being atheist than it is on common sense.

and you missed my point....

I am not seeking to explain atheism across the board and have never said so. That part has arisen from some imaginary mind reading on your part. I only say that it seems to be a significant factor sometimes.

It is widely accepted that upbringing plays a big part in why some Christians are Christians. Why should Atheists be any different?

Originally posted by knightmeister
and you missed my point....

I am not seeking to explain atheism across the board and have never said so. That part has arisen from some imaginary mind reading on your part. I only say that it seems to be a significant factor sometimes.

I never said you were seeking to explain atheism across the board. But you are seeking to draw an unwarranted conclusion from the data.

It is widely accepted that upbringing plays a big part in why some Christians are Christians. Why should Atheists be any different?
It is quite likely that the children of atheists are more likely to be atheist. That is not however the conclusion you want. Your claim is that at least some atheists (and in fact a large enough proportion of those on this forum to be significant) are atheist because of a negative experience with theism not because they have sound logical reasons for being atheist. You have no good reasons for such a conclusion, so your reason must be a personal desire to avoid admitting the most likely explanation for their atheism - that it make sense to them. The interesting thing is that you persist with your claim even though your survey proved that your initial data was in fact wrong. I think if you add up the responses in this thread you will find that atheists with the history you describe are severely under represented not over represented as you claim.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I never said you were seeking to explain atheism across the board. But you are seeking to draw an unwarranted conclusion from the data.

[b]It is widely accepted that upbringing plays a big part in why some Christians are Christians. Why should Atheists be any different?
It is quite likely that the children of atheists are more likely to be atheis ...[text shortened]... with the history you describe are severely under represented not over represented as you claim.[/b]

Your claim is that at least some atheists (and in fact a large enough proportion of those on this forum to be significant) are atheist because of a negative experience with theism not because they have sound logical reasons for being atheist.-----------whitey-----------------

And therein lies your misunderstanding. I think it's both. Just because a negative experience plays a role in someone's Atheism does not mean that they can't have sound logical reasons for their disbelief as well. You have made it into an either/or position which it is not.

All I'm doing is pointing out the obvious , that someone's upbringing plays a role in their beliefs , negative or positive , Christian or otherwise. I would have thought that a hard determinist like you would have little problem with this idea. It seems that you find it a hard pill to swallow that Atheism is not neccessarily a consistently pure fountain of logic.

If we were all Mr Spock robots you would be right , look around you , we are not. We all invest a degree of emotion in our relative positions. If you find this idea unsettling then that's Ok , you are only human afterall.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Your claim is that at least some atheists (and in fact a large enough proportion of those on this forum to be significant) are atheist because of a negative experience with theism not because they have sound logical reasons for being atheist.-----------whitey-----------------

And therein lies your misunderstanding. I think it's both. Just because a ...[text shortened]... positions. If you find this idea unsettling then that's Ok , you are only human afterall.

…And therein lies your misunderstanding. I think it's both. Just because a negative experience plays a role in someone's Atheism does not mean that they can't have sound logical reasons for their disbelief as well. You have made it into an either/or position which it is not. .….

If sound logical reasons are sufficient to explain their disbelief then your hypothesis that “negative experience plays a role in someone's Atheism” becomes an unnecessary hypothesis because their disbelief is fully explained without this “negative experience” hypotheses. In addition, I am an atheist and I can confirm that at least for me no “negative experience” plays any part in my atheism and, in addition, I am sure that virtually all atheists would confirm the same for themselves. So what is the premise for your belief that “negative experience” plays any part in their atheism?
Can you give any evidence or logical reason to support this belief?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…And therein lies your misunderstanding. I think it's both. Just because a negative experience plays a role in someone's Atheism does not mean that they can't have sound logical reasons for their disbelief as well. You have made it into an either/or position which it is not. .….

If sound logical reasons are sufficient to explain their disbe ...[text shortened]... part in their atheism?
Can you give any evidence or logical reason to support this belief?[/b]

The evidence is human nature. People form beliefs for very complex reasons. I know you would like to believe that all Atheists are ruthlessly objective and logical but by virtue of being human I can guarantee they are not.

For example , I know for a fact that in the "suffering and bikes" debate we are having that I have made some good points. My points are not conclusive but the issue of freedom is more complex than you make out. You have also made some good points.

Now if you are being truly objective and unbiased you will just admit this (whilst still being totally free to disagree with me). If I challenge you to admit there is at least some validity to what I am saying then the first thing you might feel is a resistance to doing so because you are emotionally involved in your position (as am I).

This is the acid test. Can one concede a point when it has been made even though it kills you to do so. My experience is that Atheists are no better at doing this than anyone else. If you are as truly rational and objective as you like to think you will have to concede that sometimes the odd Theist makes a half decent point.

Now do you understand what I mean by logical versus emotional? Look within your very self and you will find all the evidence you need.

oh, knightmeister...you've made me return...

As for the "IF" again that for some odd reason boggles you Christians in this particular thread, you are not understanding.

AFTER all the "BECAUSE" statements (I thought you would do better with those) I said, "IF any of the above can be said of "all" christians, then ...."

The reason I said that is that I'm trying to not totally trash those few christians out there that believe but also think logically and rationally first. For instance, a very christian girl at my school happens to be a biology major and stated something surprising to her friends who were arguing against me about evolution (animals evolved but people didn't...LOL). She said something to the effect of "Look, I believe in God and Christ but, seriously, with all of the stuff I've learned, there's no way we didn't evolve. We're just like all the other organisms that evolved."

So, those like you, yes...deluded. Those like her, I lend a little more credit to. I don't lend credit to their belief in a God. I lend credit to her in that sense that I respect that while she's a believer, she does not let her belief system overrule evidence and logic. Moreover, I believe it's important to acknowledge that some "christians" or any religion can often be pressed and questioned to the point that they admit a very doubtful belief in god and one that exists mostly out of a peace-of-mind convenience.

Knightmeister, let's see where you stand: Do you actually believe that a talking snake with legs tricked eve into eating forbidden fruit on a tree that God himself (all-knowing?) put there in the first place? And do you believe that God then while "...walking in the garden in the cool of the day.." couldn't find them as they were "hiding" ("And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?"😉. Then, and this is a much more logical reason (???) than evolution, God took away the serpent's legs so that it now crawled? LOL, what a crock.

Understand? I think if you took a logic and reasoning course like those offered in comp sci or perhaps more science courses in general, you might become more comfortable with "if then" statements.
OMG, I could go on forever pointing out the funny stories that are just so ridiculous. But enough, I hath finished.

I'll pray for you, haha.
-atheist kast

Originally posted by knightmeister
I think evidential considerations play a big role. People are entitled to ask what evidence there is. I'm not saying that there are no genuine atheists and I also don't think that it's clear cut. Someone like Dawkins for example seems to have a strong rational foundation for his atheism and it's a well thought through position. However , I still detect form with no exposure to theism at all since by definition it is a reaction against theism.

But don't you see how your "association" argument (bottom of page 3) is a real laugher? Not only does it trivialize atheism, but there's no reason to think it doesn't trivialize theism just as much as it trivializes atheism. After all, if non-evidentiary associations are so efficient at eliciting belief, then surely the theist just has at bottom "emotional" reasons, too -- the theist is just reacting in line with an upbringing that featured theism-eliciting associations; just like you claim that the atheist is just reacting in line with an upbringing that feature atheism-eliciting associations. In this sense, noting how much a theist loves and respects theism becomes just as damning as noting how much an atheist hates and disrespects theism.

I mean, get serious. Not only do a large portion of people not hold the attitudes you claim to the extent you claim; but in addition, the attitudes you point to are complex sets of dispositions (including noncognitive aspects) largely borne out of our social interactions (often with small, non-representative subsets of people on the "opposing" side) -- they should not just simply be treated as bases for belief. Instead of pistol-whipping the claim that the "real" reasons undergirding (a)theism are "emotional" reasons (whatever that means, exactly), it would be better to make the following distinction: even if our beliefs are informed through considerations that are evidential in nature, it may nevertheless be the case that what we take as evidence is at least in part conditioned by our milieu and social interactions. That should work for both atheism and theism.

Originally posted by LemonJello
But don't you see how your "association" argument (bottom of page 3) is a real laugher? Not only does it trivialize atheism, but there's no reason to think it doesn't trivialize theism just as much as it trivializes atheism. After all, if non-evidentiary associations are so efficient at eliciting belief, then surely the theist just has at bottom "emotio ...[text shortened]... our milieu and social interactions. That should work for both atheism and theism.

Not only does it trivialize atheism, but there's no reason to think it doesn't trivialize theism just as much as it trivializes atheism. ---------------------------lemon--------------------------------------


And when have I ever said that this does not apply across the board to theism as well?

I'm simply saying that theism and atheism are in the same boat more than atheists like to admit because they like to cling to the "theists= irrational , atheist=rational" dogma.

If you disagree with theism that's Ok but do you have to hammer it into a corner of irrationality to do so? I do not have to do this with atheism in order to believe , I don't need to . I can see why some are atheists , I just happen to disagree with their reasoning , but because I disagree with their reasoning does not mean I think they are being irrational.

Originally posted by kast
oh, knightmeister...you've made me return...

As for the "IF" again that for some odd reason boggles you Christians in this particular thread, you are not understanding.

AFTER all the "BECAUSE" statements (I thought you would do better with those) I said, "IF any of the above can be said of "all" christians, then ...."

The reason I said that is that I'm ...[text shortened]... h, I hath finished.

I'll pray for you, haha.
-atheist kast

Knightmeister, let's see where you stand: Do you actually believe that a talking snake with legs tricked eve into eating forbidden fruit on a tree that God himself (all-knowing?) put there in the first place? And do you believe that God then while "...walking in the garden in the cool of the day.." couldn't find them as they were "hiding" ("And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?". Then, and this is a much more logical reason (???) than evolution, God took away the serpent's legs so that it now crawled? LOL, what a crock.-------------------kast-------------------------


Not only do I not believe it but I don't know of any requirement to believe it other than the one artificially placed upon us by the "church". Jesus had next to nothing to say about adam and eve.

Originally posted by knightmeister
The evidence is human nature. People form beliefs for very complex reasons. I know you would like to believe that all Atheists are ruthlessly objective and logical but by virtue of being human I can guarantee they are not.

For example , I know for a fact that in the "suffering and bikes" debate we are having that I have made some good points. My po ...[text shortened]... ical versus emotional? Look within your very self and you will find all the evidence you need.

…The evidence is human nature. People form beliefs for very complex reasons.….

But what is the premise for your belief that those “very complex reasons” necessarily include emotional reasons when, specifically, atheists form the belief that there is no god? -That is what I am asking you because your claim was NOT merely that people form their beliefs for “very complex reasons” but you claim WAS that, specifically, atheists form the belief that there is no god for emotional reasons.

…I know you would LIKE to believe that all Atheists are ruthlessly objective and logical but by virtue of being human I can guarantee they are not.…. (my emphasis)

As I was at pains to indicate before, I do not allow what I LIKE to be true to determine what I DO believe. So what I LIKE to believe about atheists or anything else is irrelevant. Actually, I don’t think “ALL Atheists are ruthlessly objective and logical” anyway (as you suggested). I think that would be an illogical sweeping assumption with no premise.

…If I challenge you to admit there is at least some validity to what I am saying then the first thing you might feel is a resistance to doing so because you are emotionally involved in your position (as am I). ….

Yes I am “emotionally involved in my position”, that is because you don’t appear to understand my position. But that is not the same thing as saying my emotions DETERMINE my position (if that is what you are implying) -right?

…If you are as truly rational and objective as you like to think you will have to CONCEDE that sometimes the odd Theist makes a half decent point.….

It wouldn’t be CONCEDING because I never denied it! -nor did I ever imply that I don’t believe that. IN fact I would say more than just the “odd” Theist makes more than a “half decent” point.

…Now do you understand what I mean by logical versus emotional? Look within your very self and you will find all the evidence you need..…

I look within myself and I see I have emotions -so what is your point here? I do not deny that I have emotions. I do deny that I am atheist because of emotions. Do you equate merely having emotions with letting those emotions determine what you believe? -the two things are not the same.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Just curious....how many atheists are there out there who have NOT been brought up to believe? It seems to me that many of the Atheists here have been brought up in churches or Christian families.

This is not to say that this discredits their position per se , but it's an interesting fact that many of them seem to be consciously / unconsciously reb ...[text shortened]... eal Christianity.

Is it a pre-requisite of being an Atheist that you went to Sunday school?

I was not raised in a theistic family, and I'm an atheist. In fact, I'm 28 now and I still don't know what my parents' religious beliefs are. They're getting up there in years, so we might want to have that conversation soon, if only to let me know how they'd want their funeral arrangements handled.

By the way, if they were raised in a Christian household, and had Christianity shoved down their throats on a weekly basis in church, wouldn't the fact that it was a Christian church make it by definition "real Christianity"? Or do you have some special line to the deity to be able to distinguish the true and false versions of Christianity?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…The evidence is human nature. People form beliefs for very complex reasons.….

But what is the premise for your belief that those “very complex reasons” necessarily include emotional reasons when, specifically, atheists form the belief that there is no god? -That is what I am asking you because your claim was NOT merely that people form th ...[text shortened]... otions with letting those emotions determine what you believe? -the two things are not the same.[/b]

There's a lot of questions here. Which ones would you most like me to address?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Not only does it trivialize atheism, but there's no reason to think it doesn't trivialize theism just as much as it trivializes atheism. ---------------------------lemon--------------------------------------


And when have I ever said that this does not apply across the board to theism as well?

I'm simply saying that theism and atheism are in t because I disagree with their reasoning does not mean I think they are being irrational.

And when have I ever said that this does not apply across the board to theism as well?

Try to keep your eye on the ball: I'm not saying that's what you said; rather, I am saying that your argument, taken for what it is, is outrageously bad and doesn't align with reality. I'll say it again: your argument simply trivializes across the board. If this is what you were trying to accomplish, then well done; if on the other hand you were trying to sketch out something that aligns with reality (the real boat that both theists and atheists are in), then back to the drawing board for you.

I'm simply saying that theism and atheism are in the same boat

They're not both in the boat you are describing, though, because -- again -- your argument is outrageously bad and doesn't align with reality. If you could actually follow this discussion, I am agreeing with what I think is the underlying spirit of your line of thinking: basically, regardless of our stance concerning theism, we are all subject to conditioning based on our milieu and upbringing. What I strongly disagree with, however, is how you just sloppily then chalk this up to our having merely "emotional" reasons for our stances. No, it's much more likely that the reasons we have (on both sides) are largely evidential in nature; but the aforementioned social conditioning at least partially influences our interpretations of evidence. On top of which, the attitudes you describe (like, e.g., the attitude an atheist may demonstrate toward theism) are, again, typically complex sets of dispositions that form over time and can be evaluative, motivational, etc. They are not simply grounds for belief; on the contrary, our beliefs help shape these attitudes. This you also just clearly don't get when you imply ridiculous things such as that these attitudes are "really" what grounds the atheist's or theist's (dis)belief.